Diabetes mellitus is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and escalating health care costs. Research has consistently demonstrated the importance of glycaemic control in delaying the onset, and decreasing the incidence, of both the short-term and long-term complications of diabetes. Although glycaemic control is difficult to achieve and challenging to maintain, it is key to reducing negative disease outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine whether a nurse-led educational intervention alone or a nurse-led intervention using education and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) was effective in reducing hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) in people living with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes compared to usual care.
Adults over the age of 18 years, with a confirmed diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and HbA1c outside of the recommended range (4%-7%, 20-53 mmol/mol) for 12 months or more, were eligible to participate. Participants were randomised to either a nurse-led education intervention, a nurse-led education plus ACT intervention, or a usual care. One hundred and eighteen participants completed baseline data collection (N = 34 education group, N = 39 education plus ACT, N = 45 control group). An intention to treat analysis was used.
A statistically significant reduction in HbA1c in the education intervention group was found (P = .011 [7.48, 8.14]). At 6 months, HbA1c was reduced in both intervention groups (education group -0.21 and education and ACT group -0.04) and increased in the control group (+0.32). A positive change in HbA1c (HbA1c reduced) was noted in 50 participants overall. Twice as many participants in the intervention groups demonstrated an improvement as compared to the control group (56% of the education group, 51% education plus ACT, and 24% control group.
At 6 months post intervention, HbA1c was reduced in both intervention groups with a greater reduction noted in the nurse-led education intervention.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,743,151
of 28,866,090 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#91
of 1,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,948
of 333,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#4
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,866,090 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
